Tuesday, April 25, 2006

For the 109th Congress, It Is Business As Usual

The Lawmakers and Their Patrons, the Lobbyists

Let's face it. Congress does not want enactment of a meaningful legislation to curb the influence of lobbyists. It never did. The members made some noises after details of Jack Abramoff's illegal deals came to light. But they had second thoughts. Editorial in the Post, Sham Lobbying Reform, paints a sickening picture of the lawmakers and their shameful decision to push for a toothless bill. "Mr. Dreier's Rules Committee took an already weak House bill and made it weaker. From the version of the measure approved by the House Judiciary Committee, it dropped provisions that would require lobbyists to disclose fundraisers they host for candidates, campaign checks they solicit for lawmakers and parties they finance (at conventions, for example) in honor of members.

Excerpts:

Privately paid travel, such as the lavish golfing trips to Scotland that Mr. Abramoff arranged for members? "Private travel has been abused by some, and I believe we need to put an end to it," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). But that was January; this is now. Privately funded trips wouldn't be banned under the House bill, just "suspended" until Dec. 15 (yes, just after the election) while the House ethics committee, that bastion of anemic do-nothingness, ostensibly develops recommendations.

Meals and other gifts from lobbyists? "I believe that it's also very important for us to proceed with a significantly stronger gift ban, which would prevent members and staff from personally benefiting from gifts from lobbyists," said Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) in -- you guessed it -- January. Now, Mr. Dreier's bill would leave the current gift limits unchanged.